I've always thought of offense vs. defense the other way around. It seems to me that offense explodes, and then defenses change to reduce scoring. I haven't thought about it enough to organize any evidence; it's simply my impression of things.

The thing is, managers and coaches always LIKE defense; they always prefer defensive players. Managers like to control things. Allowing the other team to score runs (or points) is a loss of control of the situation. Many managers (and coaches) in all sports, historically, wax poetic about how it is defense that wins championships. Just reading Joe Posnanski’s brilliant new book about Joe Paterno (in manuscript), and Paterno does this familiar schtick about how it’s defense that wins games, which is what coaches tend to believe. Very few managers are ever going to take over a team and say “We’ve got to get some of these defensive clowns out of here and bring in some bangers”, even though this has been done with great success on some occasions, like Milwaukee in 1980 and the Red Sox in 2003.

I'm sure he's right about this. "Defense wins championships" makes no sense in football as a blind rule. It makes no sense in baseball.

Well. . .the tradition going way down the ladder is not necessarily a problem; in fact, it could help you make it work… We draft a lot of “conversion” guys; I think all major league teams do. Scouts are always looking for third basemen and infielders who maybe could be catchers, since everybody generally needs catching in their system…

But everybody knows that efforts to convert players from other positions into catchers will fail 95% of the time, plus.

Wouldn't that be an argument that the tradition going way down the ladder is necesarily a problem?

.in fact, I think it is probably mine, although I don’t believe in taking credit for anything.

Neat trick.

I've always thought of offense vs. defense the other way around. It seems to me that offense explodes, and then defenses change to reduce scoring. I haven't thought about it enough to organize any evidence; it's simply my impression of things.

Lowering the mound after the 1968 season was clearly a response to defense being too far ahead of offense. Ostensibly, the introduction of the DH in the American League in 1973 was an attempt to introduce more offense into the game. And, of course, the big one was the introduction of the lively ball after WWI.

Those are just the primary changes off the top of my head. Usually, the adjustments are more subtle: for example, shrinking or expanding the strike zone; moving fences in or out; juicing or deadening the ball; and so forth.

DB

Just reading Joe Posnanski’s brilliant new book about Joe Paterno (in manuscript)....

Looks like Pos can count on at least one positive review.

DB

Very few managers are ever going to take over a team and say “We’ve got to get some of these defensive clowns out of here and bring in some bangers”, even though this has been done with great success on some occasions, like Milwaukee in 1980 and the Red Sox in 2003.

Bill is definitely hitting the hookah pipe here. The Brewers had a highly stable team from 78-80 in terms of personnel, scoring between 804-811 runs over those seasons. The Red Sox scored 102 more runs in '03 than in '02 mostly because they upgraded at first base and third base. But Tony Clark (who tanked in '02) had been signed for his offense, not his defense--his OPS+ going into '02 was 121. And if anyone really expected Bill Mueller to have his career year in '03, they would have been hitting the same pipe Bill is smoking here.

Let's also not forget that the Sox traded away Nomar in '04 and went with Orlando Cabrera down the stretch--with post-season results that several other teams rather foolishly attempted to replicate in subsequent years.

There's no evidence that these teams were altered to get a bunch of good field-no hit players out of the lineup in favor of some "bangers."

I don't know that the defense thing is right. Isn't the 90's-2000's in baseball a counter example? I do agree that coaches prefer defense.

But everybody knows that efforts to convert players from other positions into catchers will fail 95% of the time, plus. Being a catcher is the hardest defensive position on the field, and the hardest position to learn to play at the extremely high level demanded at the major leagues. When a player starts out the learning process six or eight years behind, the odds are against his being able to catch up. We always TRY, and occasionally you get guys pretty far up the minor league ladder with those efforts, but. ....it’s a long-odds thing.

This is interesting to me. It implies that the RSox tried this, right? And failed? I wonder where they felt like the conversion failed.

Looks like Pos can count on at least one positive review.

DB

Given the ridiculous comments James has previously written about Penn State, that's not exactly a shocker.

Lowering the mound after the 1968 season was clearly a response to defense being too far ahead of offense. Ostensibly, the introduction of the DH in the American League in 1973 was an attempt to introduce more offense into the game. And, of course, the big one was the introduction of the lively ball after WWI.

Those are just the primary changes off the top of my head. Usually, the adjustments are more subtle: for example, shrinking or expanding the strike zone; moving fences in or out; juicing or deadening the ball; and so forth.

I thought that the lowering of the mound/introduction of the DH was a direct response to higher scoring style of the '50s and the initial wave of expansion.

If you limit the conversation to on-the-field changes, then I think it's harder to discern. The earliest versions of baseball were slugfests that rewarded players for putting the ball in play and running. Later, teams start to focus on pitchers to the point that owners decide to move the mound back. Baseball once again becomes an offense driven game until defenses and pitchers adjust until the lively ball era.

I grew up in the sillyball era, and the current shift toward defense seems to be a direct response to this era.

I've always thought of offense vs. defense the other way around. It seems to me that offense explodes, and then defenses change to reduce scoring.

These aren't necessarily mutually exclusive as the poster asked about rule changes by the league to open up offense. You are talking about defenses evolving to combat new offensive styles.

But there have been times when rules have changed to limit offense, particularly lane width and dunking/offensive goaltending rules in basketball (also where I assume the 3-second rule came from). Hockey has wavered back and forth at times although I'm not sure there were many rule changes to limit offense. More common is differential enforcement of particular rules (which is what I think went on in hockey but I haven't followed it closely in decades). In pro basketball, they did eventually get tired of the no-defense days but I'm not sure there were rule changes as much as being a bit more restrained in foul calling. Then they wanted more spectacular plays and the travelling call went the way of the dodo. Then the 3-point line (or was that before?) Then they claimed they were going to increase offense by allowing zone defenses -- which of course made no sense so presumably they were just fibbing on that one. College basketball meanwhile wanted to increase scoring by limiting the offense and brought in the shot clock.

And presumably baseball has done something to limit offense -- whether it's testing, deader balls, bigger parks, bigger strike zones, Maybe it's just defense catching up with offense but it seems to sudden to me for that.

I think fans of all sports generally like scoring. Maybe not ridiculous amounts of it (they do enjoy defense too) but it's probably rarely a good PR move for a league to say "we are introducing this rule to make the game less exciting." They achieve that through differential enforcement when necessary.

Dick Groat (#10) - "I thought that the lowering of the mound/introduction of the DH was a direct response to higher scoring style of the '50s and the initial wave of expansion. "

The lowering of the mound that is being referred to here is the very public lowering that was ordered after the 1968 season, where the AL had only one .300 hitter, and in the NL, Bob Gibson posted a 1.12 ERA and still managed to only go 22-9.

The DH had been around for many decades as an idea before it was adopted in the AL. My personal opinion is that the powers that were in the AL just decided that hitting by pitchers had gotten so bad that it was worth while to let someone else hit who wasn't an automatic out. But that's just my opinion, and I was certainly not one of the movers and shakers who adopted the rule.

Walt's analysis of basketball above is very instructive, but does have one issue. Many of the changes he lists were adopted to keep the tall guys from completely dominating the game, rather than to change the scores. The 3-point shot is the most obvious, but the lane width and dunking/goal tending rules were adopted largely to keep Wilt Chamberlain et al from just hanging around underneath the basket and dominating both scoring and rebounds. The dunk rule (specifically and publicly adopted to keep Lew Alcindor (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar) from just totally dominating college ball) is largely ignored, even at the college level, as is traveling, unless you are really egregious about it. The main effect of all this has been to transform basketball into the "transition game" concept that we see now, where you can't play if you can't run, even if you're 7 feet tall or more (Bill Russell is the guy who brought the transition game to the NBA, although I'm sure he picked it up earlier than that; Julius Erving is the guy who perfected it). The shot clock was unquestionably introduced to get the scoring up. In particular, it was designed to keep teams from using Dean Smith's 4-corners offense, which he could use for several minutes at the end of the game, once he had gotten the lead. The trade-off is that you now have half an hour devoted to the last 2 minutes of game time, because the team that is behind fouls incessantly. On the other hand, before the shot clock, I once saw a high school basketball game whose score was 3-2. I'm serious. Neither team had any real players, and their entire game was based around keeping other teams from running up scores these two teams could not hope to match. Matching them against each other was an exercise in marathon dribbling. - Brock Hanke

Wouldn't that be an argument that the tradition going way down the ladder is necesarily a problem?

Yeah, I'm not sure what James was getting at there. I get that he's saying that it's common for teams to draft non-catchers with the intent of converting them to catcher, so that part isn't an obstacle. But if it's very tough to convert players who didn't catch in high school or college, surely it'd be even tougher to convert players who literally have never put on the tools of ignorance in their lives?

I suspect that it is true that, generally speaking, the historical trend is for strategy to develop to decrease offense, which then prompts rule changes to increase offense. That said, baseball is the most stat-conscious sport. I think that makes it more important to baseball folks that league averages remain similar (so that you can more easily compare players historically), and thus you sometimes do see rules change in reaction to "too much offense!" in baseball, where you usually don't in other sports.

Have we all talked the left handed catcher thing to death by now? I was hoping some discussion would be about that.

Of course, James didn't answer the mail-bagger's actual question on the left-handed catcher thing. Assuming that there is no reason that a lefty couldn't catch at the MLB level, it doesn't necessarily follow that this is therefore an inefficiency that could be exploited. It's not like there's a pool of under-valued left-handed catchers sitting around somewhere waiting to be tapped.

#14 - well, that seems fair. Bill James, in the HIstorical Abstract, says that there have been no lefty catchers because, if you have a lefty with an arm, you move him to pitcher. Makes sense.

But lefties do have a couple of advantages, says the guy who played amateur ball as a catcher and who is left-handed. First, you have a better angle trying to pick off runners at first. The snap throw there is natural for lefties, but requires a righty either to twist his torso or shift his whole body. And second, unless you are tall for a catcher, your glove settles naturally into the low-outside slot to righty hitters, just as soon as you squat. A righty catcher has that advantage only with the much-fewer lefty batters. I can't remember any other bonuses than that, although I didn't exactly play at the MLB level.. - Brock Hanke

bill was clearly thinking of brewers of 1978-1982 where guys like thomas, ogilvie, and molitor were added to cooper and yount

playing in a pitchers park and with the left fielder battling injuries all season the 1982 crew scored 892 runs

that offense in the crazy 90's would have scored 950ish

I know of one left-handed catcher in recent years: an Orioles bullpen catcher named Ruben Felix. I can't find an image of him in catching gear, but here's a story about Felix as player and coach. He's pictured there throwing batting practice, but he did catch in the bullpen – and as you might imagine, he got into that by being a bullpen coach. It would probably be a minor efficiency to have L/R bullpen catchers in close quarters if you were warming up two pitchers at the same time; I wonder if other teams do that.

Otherwise, it's one of those self-reinforcing things: if a LH thrower never gets a look at catcher, even in Little League, there will be no LH catchers at higher levels.

I do remember a story from an old-timer explaining the original emphasis on RH catchers as harking back to deadball days when catchers threw to the bases a lot more, on steals, bunt plays, choppers at the plate; the key base to throw to would have been third, easier for a RH thrower. As Brock mentions, the base most often thrown to today is first, but there are no LH throwers around to capitalize on it.

Assuming that there is no reason that a lefty couldn't catch at the MLB level, it doesn't necessarily follow that this is therefore an inefficiency that could be exploited. It's not like there's a pool of under-valued left-handed catchers sitting around somewhere waiting to be tapped.

If:

a) your current catcher isn't any good,
b) you have a lefty-throwing 1B or OF who can hit, but there's no room for him in the lineup,
c) that guy could have been brought up as a (decent defensive) catcher, which would give you a better overall catcher right now, but
d) you missed out on that because you assumed lefties can never catch,

then surely that is an inefficiency.

But, as has been discussed here, the problem seems to be getting from A to B when lefties can't catch in amateur ball and asking them to start catching in pro ball might be unrealistic.

How are you going to know that you'll have a lefty who can hit at the major league level 3 to 5 years from now but not have room for him? That's a luxury most teams would love to have.

My personal opinion is that the powers that were in the AL just decided that hitting by pitchers had gotten so bad that it was worth while to let someone else hit who wasn't an automatic out.

It wasn't just offense that had dropped through the floor by 1972, but attendance as well, and the AL owners were starting to get desperate. Only three AL teams in 1972 drew a million fans (led by the Tigers at 1.89 million). Five teams averaged fewer than 10,000 fans a game.

And it worked: the first season with the DH, eight AL teams drew a million fans.

How are you going to know that you'll have a lefty who can hit at the major league level 3 to 5 years from now but not have room for him? That's a luxury most teams would love to have.

Well, I'm describing a way that you could diagnose the problem, as it were. The way you would ultimately combat it would be to realize as early as possible "this guy's bat is going to be marginal at 1B/OF, but I think we can make him a catcher," and then bring him up as a catcher.

My point was that the fact that there aren't any lefty-throwing catchers to go get RIGHT NOW doesn't mean that there isn't an inefficiency. The increased efficiency would come from creating them.

1972 MLB players union strike.

Hell, marginal lefty 1B/OF are valuable as well and especially valuable while they are still young and considered a prospect. Trying to make them a catcher before they even develop as a hitter would be a huge risk with little payoff compared to the reward of simply letting them develop normally.

Otherwise, it's one of those self-reinforcing things: if a LH thrower never gets a look at catcher, even in Little League, there will be no LH catchers at higher levels.

From what I've seen, a bigger impediment to lefty catching is not coaches who won't give southpaws a look, it's that many teams (or whole leagues) simply don't have a lefthanded catcher's glove for the prospective catcher to use.

[19] That's way too long a trip to count as an inefficiency in my book. How do you exploit this mistaken belief that lefties can't catch in a useful time-frame? Trying to convert every decent lefty in your system to catching is surely going to create greater inefficiencies (by preventing them from honing skills at another position and possibly messing them up as hitters) than the one it would ostensibly address five years down the road.

From what I've seen, a bigger impediment to lefty catching is not coaches who won't give southpaws a look, it's that many teams (or whole leagues) simply don't have a lefthanded catcher's glove for the prospective catcher to use.

This was not an issue when I coached LL. We had at least two lefty throwers who did a bunch of catching, and the league provided them with mitts. This was a clear case of them being the best athletes on the team, and therefore being put at the most demanding positions (yeah, you can't take a lead in LL, but passed balls will kill you). They both stopped catching after LL, one because he was too fast to not play CF, and the other because he never developed enough accuracy throwing the ball to play anywhere but OF.

Trying to convert every decent lefty in your system to catching

Obviously one would not do this, but rather only the ones whose overall offensive and defensive skill sets were best suited to catching.

One issue a lefty catcher has to overcome is that most hitters (especially on the non-MLB level) bat right-handed, and therefore provide an obstacle to the catcher when throwing to secondbase on stolen base attempts.

DB

Bill James seems like kinda a dick that proves the old "most men have one moment of genius" theory pretty well. He comes off outta touch and slightly off his rocker in these chats, as well as like a conceited prick.

Just reading Joe Posnanski’s brilliant new book about Joe Paterno (in manuscript)....

Looks like Pos can count on at least one positive review.

DB

Well, when Gaelan reads this, James is going to have to go into witness protection mode. And there's more than one Gaelan out there.

-------------------------------------------------------------

I once saw a high school basketball game whose score was 3-2. I'm serious. Neither team had any real players, and their entire game was based around keeping other teams from running up scores these two teams could not hope to match. Matching them against each other was an exercise in marathon dribbling. - Brock Hanke

Before the NBA's 24 second clock there was a Pistons-Lakers game that wound up 19 to 18.

And before the collegiate shot clock, the ACC tournment had a 21-20 Duke-Carolina game and a 12-10 State-Duke game.

All through Little League and Babe Ruth ball, I was a starting catcher, and my backup was our starting CF, who was left-handed. He had a cannon for an arm, but I think it really started because he happened to have a left-handed catcher's mitt and was really enthusiastic about playing as many positions as he could. He was the kind of guy who saved his allowance for months so he could buy random baseball equipment like a left-handed catcher's mit or a batting glove that more precisely resembled Ken Griffey's. He was good, too -- probably a better catcher than me. If I had been fast enough to play center, we probably would have switched positions, but unfortunately my only other real area of competence was as a Jeff Kent-style 2B.

There's a passage in Fever Pitch, the Nick Hornby soccer memoir, that always makes me think of that guy. Hornby talks about a dude he played soccer with at Oxford who was just light years ahead of everybody else, quicker, smarter, more intuitive. He maxed out as a sub on some third-division club, apparently. My friend John was like that. Cannon for an arm, six feet tall at the age of thirteen, fast as the wind, and a real lover of the game to boot. We all thought he was gonna play for the mariners someday. I think he actually topped out as a backup outfielder at Pepperdine or someplace like that.

I used an outfielder's glove when I, a lefty, caught in LL. Throwing to third was an issue (flip side of Brock's comment), second not so much.

#21 Two things to take into account though Tom. First of all, 1972 was slightly shortened by a strike. Second, in 1973 the AL changed the way they reported attendance -- from tickets used to tickets sold.

Attendance was up 12% on a per-game basis most (if not all) of that was probably due to the change in reporting (the NL saw a similar rise when they made the same change)

And it's interesting to look at it team by team. There were massive attendance gains in KC and Milwaukee and large gains in California and New York. Attendance certainly went down in Cleveland and Detroit and were also slightly down in Boston and Texas and were basically unchanged (after allowing for changes in counting) elsewhere.

Bill James made the point about LH catchers better in the NHBA.He says that if you have a kid on your team who's left-handed and has a good arm, what are you going to do with him?

The percentage of LH pitchers in baseball is way higher than the LH population, so a huge percentage of lefty-throwers are converted into pitchers compared to righties. Lefties also get pushed toward pitching because they are distinctly disadvantaged at three of the infield positions. That doesn't leave a ton of good-throwing lefties to play catcher.

The % of LH in everything in baseball is way higher than the LH population.

I'm pretty sure that the % of LH SS in baseball is less than the % of LH in the general population.

I think Bill James also made the point long ago that the tendency to crave LH pitchers so as to mitigate that advantage LH batters enjoy over RH batters because of the plethora of RH pitching might be resulting in some inferior LH pitchers getting chances their right-handed counterpats wouldn't get. Has anyone ever taken that up in a study?

When I was in little league I was the catcher and my backup was left handed as well, except he played SS when he wasn't catching, easily the best athlete on the team.

And speaking of left handed catchers, i know of at least one MLB player who is naturally left handed and played that way up until his mid teens when he switched to RH so he could play SS. He outgrew that and came to the Majors as a catcher. I am sure he could catch lefty if he wanted. But Pablo's real ambition is to come in as a switch pitcher in an extra inning game.

Off-topic, but I just noticed something that maybe has always been obvious to everyone else. Pittsburgh at Detroit, top of the 9th, one out, man on third, Tigers up by two. The Pirate batter hit a fly that was caught, and the runner from third scored after the catch. Is there any reason in the world why the rules should treat that as a sacrifice fly?

Is there any reason in the world why the rules should treat that as a sacrifice fly?

I've long said that if I could change one thing about BA, it would be to treat all sac flies as at bats (true sac bunts would remain no at bats*). There's no reason to think (or, at least, no way to determine if) the batter was trying to fly out to the outfield rather than believing such a result was merely the mildly productive output of a normal swing (the same way a run-scoring grounder is treated).

It's not as egregrious as failing to consider ROE as reaching base in OBP, but it still rankles.

BTW, the other question you could ask about the play is if there's any reason the guy at third should be trying to score?

* Bunts dropped down with the hope of getting a base hit, but that result in an out at first and an advanced runner would also result in an at bat.

BTW, the other question you could ask about the play is if there's any reason the guy at third should be trying to score?

The baserunner (Josh Harrison) had just moved from second to third on a short passed ball, beating the throw with a head first slide. After that, jogging home was pie....

The baserunner (Josh Harrison) had just moved from second to third on a short passed ball, beating the throw with a head first slide. After that, jogging home was pie....

Obviously from your description the initial decision was far worse than the second, but there's still nothing good that can come from going home, while something bad can.

Here is one scenario that would cause MLB to think about changing the sac fly rule:

Ichiro Suzuki is neck-and-neck with Josh Hamilton for the AL batting title in the season's last game. Hamilton comes up in the 9th with a microscopic .0003 lead, but Josh also wants the Triple Crown, he needs an RBI, and the bases are full with none out.

Hamilton hits a fly to medium-deep right. Elvis Andrus on third is going to score easily. Suzuki, in RF, decides to let the ball drop, quickly fields it on the bounce and forces the runner heading for second for a fielder's choice; and an AT BAT! Hamilton gets his RBI title, but loses the batting race. If Ichiro! had only caught the ball, it would have altered nothing in the game except for the scoring decision of Hamilton's average.

And so, I posit that indeed all SFs should be charged ABs.

There is no such thing as a FC on a flyball. If he allows it to drop it goes as a hit. FC only occur on groundballs and or when the batter tries to advance past first base while the fielder is attempting to throw out another runner.

Ichiro is better off letting the ball clang off his glove That way an error is charged, Hamilton records and AB, and it is still possible for Ichiro to gun down the runner heading to second.

Plus if one of Ichiro's teammates is going for the RBI title it is possible that Hamilton doesn't get an RBI either.

But, as has been discussed here, the problem seems to be getting from A to B when lefties can't catch in amateur ball and asking them to start catching in pro ball might be unrealistic.

But this is done pretty regularly with RH throwers when they get to the minors. It's not so much 1B/DH types either, it's failed 2B, 3B and OF who make the switch (Posada being the most famous I suppose). Why can't you take a OF who can't hit* and give him a go at C? Is he going to object when it's explained it's this or being cut? And given the usefulness of a LHB backup C, the potential payout would seem to be there.

To be clear, I'm not talking about guys who might hit for a 100 OPS+ in the majors. Those guys you probably don't take the risk as they have value as 4th OFs. But starting Cs are still around 80, back-ups in the mid-60s. Take a guy like Ricardo Nanita. Somewhere around his age 24-26 it should have been pretty obvious there was little chance he'd make the majors as an OF, especially since he seems stretched in CF (given his playing time there) and isn't much of a base-stealer. What would the team lose if they tried him at C? Since he's currently a 31-year-old DH hitting without power at Las Vegas, I think it's clear the answer to the last one is "not much."

Of course I know nothing about Narita beyond those stat lines so there might be lots of legit reasons to not shift him to C but there must be a ton of guys like him through the minors. Baseball is happy to move failed OFs to 1B/DH (if they can hit), happy to try some failed IFs at C, happy even to convert failed IFs to pitcher and now even a couple of pitchers back to hitters. So why not a failed LH OF to C?

Presumably there are sufficient reasons. The more frequent difficult throw to 2B and especially 3B is certainly one. You definitely have to take a different approach on bunts and balls dribbled out front (different but I'm not convinced more difficult). Those, especially the throw to 3B with a RHB in the box, might be enough to mean that the only LH throwers who could be adequate behind the plate would be so agile as to have defensive value elsehere so no point in taking the risk.

Anyway, clearly teams believe that it can't work and we'll never have a clue if they're right until somebody tries it a few times.

There is no such thing as a FC on a flyball. If he allows it to drop it goes as a hit. FC only occur on groundballs and or when the batter tries to advance past first base while the fielder is attempting to throw out another runner.

You are incorrect. If a runner is put out by force on any ball hit, regardless where, it is not a hit. That's a fielder's choice.

There is no such thing as a FC on a flyball.

no the situation he described results in an FC because the runner is forced at second. Yes, that was really the fielder's only choice but the batter does not get a hit for forcing the runner.

And if Ichrio makes an error there, he could imperil his 39th gold glove or something.

Cokes to whoever posted before I did.

when the batter tries to advance past first base while the fielder is attempting to throw out another runner.

Also I've never heard this described as a "fielder's choice" although I'll grant I'm not sure how it's scored. Announcers simply refer to it as "advanced to second on the throw home" or "advanced on the play". I've only heard "fielder's choice" applied to cases where the batter reaches base "safely" due to the defense trying to put another runner out (including cases like the above where the defense really had no play on the batter).

That isn't waht the rulebook says:

FIELDER’S CHOICE is the act of a fielder who handles a fair grounder and,
instead of throwing to first base to put out the batter-runner, throws to another base in an
attempt to put out a preceding runner. The term is also used by scorers (a) to account for the
advance of the batter-runner who takes one or more extra bases when the fielder who
handles his safe hit attempts to put out a preceding runner; (b) to account for the advance of
a runner (other than by stolen base or error) while a fielder is attempting to put out another
runner; and (c) to account for the advance of a runner made solely because of the defensive
team’s indifference (undefended steal).

That isn't waht the rulebook says:

The rulebook also says this, which addresses this subject more directly:

(b) The official scorer shall not credit a base hit when a:

(1) runner is forced out by a batted ball, or would have been forced out except for a fielding error;

No exceptions for where the ball is hit.

Moreover, a fair grounder can be interpreted to mean any batted ball in fail territory that touches the ground, rather than the common usage as an infield ground ball.

there's still nothing good that can come from going home, while something bad can

This is in the situation described in #40: Pittsburgh at Detroit, top of the 9th, one out, man on third, Tigers up by two. The Pirate batter hit a fly that was caught, and the runner from third scored after the catch

Logically speaking, Detroit doesn't care about that run or runner, but Pittsburgh might. Let's say the runner holds at third. The next batter walks, and then there's a long fly to the warning track, and the runner on third for some moronic reason holds his ground and the runner on first, properly going on contact, passes him on the bases for the third out while the ball meanwhile falls in play. Or, I don't know, the next batter scorches a ball down the 3B line that hits the runner on third for the third out. It seems to me that if the guy can score easily, he should get off the bases and on the scoreboard.

The next batter walks, and then there's a long fly to the warning track, and the runner on third for some moronic reason holds his ground and the runner on first, properly going on contact, passes him on the bases for the third out while the ball meanwhile falls in play. Or, I don't know, the next batter scorches a ball down the 3B line that hits the runner on third for the third out.

I think the chances of getting called out for leaving early (regardless whether you did), or stumbling between third and home or some other bad result vastly exceed the chances of some future runner passing you between home and first due to genuinely monumental stupidity. And if you're on third and not taking your lead in foul territory, you deserve whatever horrible fate you suffer. (-:

Obviously if the ball is deep enough where the runner can trot home, there's very little risk to tagging up and scoring. Then again, there's absolutely no downside to the Tiger outfielder taking a shot to try to gun the guy out at the plate.

Along those lines, I've often wondered why, in the runner-on-first, ninth-inning lead-by-two-or-more situation, the opposing team doesn't try a play to catch the guy taking off for second. I'd love to see a catcher fire the ball to an uncovered second base, with the centerfielder charging. If the defense gets lucky, maybe the baserunner makes a play for third, and the defending team has a free crack at a no-downside out on the bases.

I've often wondered why, in the runner-on-first, ninth-inning lead-by-two-or-more situation, the opposing team doesn't try a play to catch the guy taking off for second. I'd love to see a catcher fire the ball to an uncovered second base, with the centerfielder charging. If the defense gets lucky, maybe the baserunner makes a play for third, and the defending team has a free crack at a no-downside out on the bases.

Yeah, I've seen that play work in a high school game once or twice. You'd like to think that major leaguers might have a bit more awareness of what's going on around them than that.

Yeah, I've seen that play work in a high school game once or twice. You'd like to think that major leaguers might have a bit more awareness of what's going on around them than that.

They probably would, but there's genuinely no harm in trying (you'd probably want to pick the optimal conditions to try it out, for instance two-run lead, aggressive baserunner on first, centerfielder with non-Damonesque arm).

* Bunts dropped down with the hope of getting a base hit, but that result in an out at first and an advanced runner would also result in an at bat.

Isn't that the current rule already?

Isn't that the current rule already?

Yes, though it's not universally applied.

#50 -- Clearly you're right on the extra base thing.

But a ground ball to Ichiro is still a ground ball ... and we all know that it is possible to ground out to the RF by getting thrown out at first. Heck, put a couple of Molinas on base ahead of him and Ichiro can probably turn a 9-5-4 double play on that ball. :-)

One issue a lefty catcher has to overcome is that most hitters (especially on the non-MLB level) bat right-handed, and therefore provide an obstacle to the catcher when throwing to secondbase on stolen base attempts.

DB

With the number of lefty and switch hitters in MLB this is as much of an issue for righty catchers as it would be for lefties.

Wow. There are a LOT more amateur lefty catchers out there than I thought. And you guys have lefty catcher's mitts? I've never even SEEN one. I used a 1B mitt. Also, I have a weak arm, although it's accurate, so I found that, for throwing to second, it was best if I just set up on one knee before the pitch, rather than actually crouching. Crouching took ALL the speed out of my throws, and also ran the danger of getting involved with a righty batter. Throwing from the knee was much better, and, because I never moved my feet or body core, I had no troubles throwing to second. Almost no one at my level of play ever tried to steal third, so I didn't have to confront that problem. But I imagine that, the first time I just turned on my knee and fired the ball to third, the batter would get out of the way, rag arm that I have.

Also, thinking about it, I agree with Walt. I can't remember an announcer refer to the advance to second on the throw home as a fielder's choice, although that's clearly what the rulebook calls it.

BTW, if you're looking for Bill James' comment on lefty catchers in the Historical Abstract, it's in the Jack Clement article in the 100 best catchers section. Clement was an 1800s catcher, and Bill was commenting on the oddity that he's been the only lefty catcher in MLB of any tenure.

the best high school catcher i ever saw was left-handed. he also batted third and when i chatted with his coach we discussed how shortstop wasn't an option and his talent would not be as valuable in centerfield as it would be at catcher and since he had been catching since little league let him stay there.

he was some player. he got a scholarship to play at oshkosh but got hurt in american legion ball and i don't think every played for the titans. and how did he get hurt? playing outfield.

Also, thinking about it, I agree with Walt. I can't remember an announcer refer to the advance to second on the throw home as a fielder's choice, although that's clearly what the rulebook calls it.

They also don't refer to catcher's indifference as a fielder's choice, but it's clearly that as well.

There's also a play that would go down as a FC that isn't directly noted above. One out, speedy winning run on third, ground ball to the third baseman (or SS), who looks/chases runner back rather than take easy out at first (and risk the runner scoring). Even without throw or true attempt to put out runner at third, I believe that should still be ruled an fielder's choice on the batter. The batter only reached base because of a choice made by the fielding team, even if that choice was to do nothing.

bill was clearly thinking of brewers of 1978-1982 where guys like thomas, ogilvie, and molitor were added to cooper and yount

That's probably right, Harvey, but what he said was 1980, which clearly isn't correct. We can't be sure if he meant 1978 or whether he was thinking about the trade that happened after the 1980 season, which actually added more pitching than hitting to the team (Fingers and Vuckovich in addition to Ted Simmons). Perhaps someone will ask him to clarify.

The big gain in '78 came from the outfielders; Molitor didn't hit much at age 21. (Don Money had hit well playing 2B for the Brewers in '77, though the overall figures at the position don't look that swift because Lenn Sakata hit .165 there for a third of a season.) To say he was "a banger" would be a stretch, at least at that exact moment in time. That also includes the signing of Larry Hisle, who had a big year in '78 but couldn't stay healthy thereafter. Thomas made an adjustment at AAA in '77 and was able to parlay it into a career as a solid AAAA slugger for 4-5 years after that, so it's one of those scenarios where just about everything fell into place. Yount and Sixto Lezcano also blossomed after having started on the "pre-banger" team in the mid-70s. The Brewers gained 165 runs from 1977-78, which is a good bit more than the Red Sox gained from 2002-03.

The batter only reached base because of a choice made by the fielding team, even if that choice was to do nothing

A fielder's choice was also recorded on a play during the 1990s where Todd Zeile mistakenly tried to record a force at third base when there was no runner on first base (and thus there was no force play at third). As the rule says, you only need an intent to put out a preceding runner, even if it's only a mistaken intent. Or as Bill James once said "it doesn't have to be a good choice or a bad choice, it just has to be a choice."

I've always believed that, given no iterference from the rulebook, scoring naturally trends down as defence continually catches up to offense.

Whether that has actually happened depends on interpretation. If you look at all of history, you see plenty of periods of huge offense. If you look at just the "modern era", when the leagues have stabalized, are fully integrated and done merging, I think it is a more clear trend. The important part is figuring out when that is due to rules changes and what is "natural".

Any of you guys want to help annotate the major rules changes on these charts?

I also threw from my knees - found I was more accurate doing that and taking a smidge off my throws than in coming up from a crouch (at the time, I had a strong, inaccurate arm). Going to third, I'd pivot and lean back in one motion to create a throwing lane (sometimes falling down in the process) - looked goofy but was effective.
Never saw a lefty catcher's mitt until my early 20s.

***

zach/65, I don't think there's an equilibrium or natural state/tendency - just actions and reactions.

Ichiro is better off letting the ball clang off his glove That way an error is charged, Hamilton records and AB

No, probably not. The official scorer would probably award Hamilton with a SF in this instance if he believes that the run would have scored anyway.